I second the question, Why are we only talking about muslims here? I have a friend who's an atheist, and poly-.... I don't know what the term is, but he doesn't fall in love with just one person at a time.

And I don't see any problem with that.

To everyone saying, "Why should they get benefits? If they can't afford to marry, they shouldn't marry!" By that logic, we shouldn't give benefits to monogamous couples either. Yet, we do.

Yes. What I find disturbing isn't the poly-thing, it's the "it is only relevant for men" thing. And I think polyandrous/polygamous marriages are not necessary. Why marry if you want many at once? The whole thing is a "women seen as property" thing. And why give extra benefits?

I didn't see it say anywhere that it would only affect men with multiple wives, just that it would probably benefit them more. So, poly people of all kinds could benefit from this. I don't quite understand the extra benefits thing for monogamous couples, either.

As an American woman, if my husband came home and told me he wanted to marry another woman and me at the same time, I'd probably kick him in the behind and show him the door. I feel that I got married to be with one person. I chose him to spend my life with, not him and another woman. That would never work for me. Of course, I don't live in a country that teaches that it's okay. I'm a firm believer in 'product of your environment' theory. I want one partner, not two. If I didn't want to be with just him, I wouldn't have gotten married.

I don't think that they should get extra benifits. I agree, if you can't suport more than one wife, don't marry another.

It's disgsuting that this has become a debate about Muslim law. It's not only Muslim's tjat can have more than one wife. I understand that It's outlawed in most religions, bu there is still the matter of Atheists. They have no religion to dictate their lives. Yet I see little mention of that.

Great, more taxpayers' money being spend stupidly. Why should the state help these people to support their lifestyle? There has been reports of such families getting over 20k per year from benefits.

If these people wants more wives and children, they should support them, not the state.

Well... I guess the question here is why do you think the husband should support the extra wives and children? Children, yes, but why the wife?

Like many others, I'm not sure why we're addressing the question of state supported spouses in a society that affords women equal (or very near) opportunity in the workforce. One would think that the multiple spouse arrangement would be beneficial because it could introduce multiple breadwinners into the family, therefore negating the need for state support. In the traditional husband-and-one-wife arrangement, a couple balances the cost of childcare against the potential earning power of a second income. Sometimes, it is more cost effective for the lower earning spouse (usually, but not always, the wife) to remain at home with the children. That makes sense. In a one-husband-and-two-wives scenario, though, there are three potential earners. That means that a family can garner the benefits of both a dual-income household and a single-income household: two incomes and one spouse at home to care for the children. If these families are still earning so little as to qualify them for state benefits, then I suspect that the real problem lies not in the practice of polygamy, but in the wage disparity between men and women and also between the majority and the groups most likely to practice polygamy. If families with double or triple or even greater earning power than traditional families are still barely scraping by at subsistence levels, that tells me that there is a problem with the economy either in the areas in which such families are likely to live or in terms of workplace discrimination against one or more groups into which such families are likely to fall.

That is a fair point and I admit I was being presumptuous when I made my statement. I was looking from a view where the husband was the sole bread winner. If this group of people were married and some wives worked and some did not, that is fine. In general, this group of people should be responsible for its own finances and should not rely on the state to support their lifestyle.

The state does not pay any benefits to the non-working member of a married couple as it expects the working member to be responsible for him/her. So it should be the same for a poly-married group of people.

Well, that is what happens if you accept to take on more and more immigrants. You will import a new culture as well. They should have thought about that beforehand.
From the economical point of view, a man with two wives is just another household, like any family-constellation on welfare. Not a big deal. Its either giving them some money, or throwing them out of the country. Just keeping people as starving, jobless citizens is not an option, cause that means you have a whole new social problem on your hands. Beggars in the street and thieves, maybe, and a lot more homeless.
Good luck governments, with your immigration-policy. Now, I didn't mean to make this sound racist or anything. Its just that politicians are really stupid sometimes.
Personally I don't care who's on welfare or not. Its just money, and it isn't mine, so I gladly share it.

And by that same token I could say the reverse is true. It not too un-reasonable to ask the immigrants to respect the host country in turn. I have been to a few places around the world and meet different people and most welcome the different cultures into their daily life. I like eating fish and chips, pizza, pasta, curry, sushi, dim sums etc. The problem is when the two cultures clash and in these cases, I believe the host country should take precedence.


It is a deal when they want a change in laws and regulation regarding polygamy when polygamy is illegal in the country.


That statement is so wrong. How can you share something that is not yours?

Wait.. So, some crazy muslim with no job now gets £33.65 for every extra wife he has? Why don't they stop breading like rabbits and get a job, for the sake of God..? £33.65.. You don't even get that for extra kid!

LOL! Another FABULOUS move from the UK! :clap: Let some Muslim with 6 wifes, who has never paid a penny in Tax, come over, and take over £200 a month for him and his wives, excluding the countless children, and hes entitled to that!
But when WE move back, we are entitled for just £0.40p a MONTH! For 4 of us [parents, just the 2 of them, and me and my brother], we get that, oh what a great country we live in!
I'm converting to Islam

Does anyone else think it would be hilarious if this cash incentive was just a carrot to lure all the bigamists into revealing themselves for prosecution?

"Here's your £33.65 AND your prison sentence! Pwned!"



In all seriousness, though, what a stupid law. If people should get government support for anything, it should be for the number of children, not wives.

And seriously, why write a law like that and only include wives as needing support? What about my future harem of men? :D

I think polygamy should be legal. But I do not think they should get extra benefits for it. If you can't afford 10 spouses, don't marry them!

Its not really a Muslim thing... I would know, I'm Muslim. Islam doesn't say "hey you should have multiple wives" it just doesn't say you shouldn't have more than one. its more of a cultural thing. So people of certain cultures who are Muslim have multiple wives. not all Muslims. In fact probably only like 2 or 3% have more than one. most Muslims fall in love with one person just like everyone else. Just thought I'd clear that up. There are a lot of stereotypes going around about Muslims and none of them are true.

Another thing. its not really women seen as property thing. some cultures are just like that. they find it normal to have more than one wife or husband. there are a few cultures where women have more than one husband. and its not just for male chauvinist sake. Sometimes its because there just aren't enough men in there societies, so the women have to share some of them. its also for population.

Not quite yet - it's just about to be made into law.


As I understand it, it is commonly understood that the first marriage has failed when a man takes a second wife. They remain married to the first one because divorce isn't allowed except in extreme circumstances in most places. I'm sure this is not always the case but it would seem it is quite a lot of the time - I'm just quoting friends and students from the middle east.

Multiple wives? Why not multiple husbands? What do men have and women don't?

Sexism is so disgusting. Either way, I don't agree with polygamy on either sides. If you marry someone else, you completely disrespect your first spouse, and you're a fucking asshole, no matter man or woman. Period.

Mostly I agree with that thought, The Creeper. To me, it seems like you've lessened the relationship or diluted it when you bring other people in. But I've been exposed more recently to those who practice polyamorism. Those people see love as more open and can have marriages with many people. I'm not clear how it works, if all the members become married to one another or if only some individuals marry more than one. It seems complicated.

An award should be given to egyptcheer for EXTREME necromancy, a 4 year old thread. That's impressive.

Blimey - didn't realise it was so old. I wondered why I hadn't been reading about it.

Well seeing as how the dead have been brought to life, why not embrace it? So what happened with these new marriage benefit policies so far?

Really? When my aunt and cousin both worked in Kuwait, they definitely had trouble with the men. Some would randomally come up and stroke their hair, just looking them in the eyes was apparently an invitation to have sex, and one guy even assumed my aunt was a hooker just because she was alone as she waited for a taxi outside her apartment block. In the end, they had to be constantly chaperoned by a male coworker, never look at anything apart from the ground, and could only say direct orders to any male, otherwise it was taken as an invitation.

I wouldn't exactly call that equal.

Anyway, back on topic, I wouldn't mind it if polygamy over here became legal, but I dislike the idea of pandering to a certain religion and excluding others, as well as extra benefits.

I'm married, and I don't agree with marriage benefits at all. Why should anyone, whether in a polygamous or monogamous relationship, deserve any kind of benefits over that of single people? If anything, single people deserve the breaks for being lonelier! Gov't should stay out of marriage altogether. Then we wouldn't be forced to have to define what it is, who is allowed to do it, and who gets what tax benefits from it.

Government can't help but be involved in marriage, because essentially marriage is a variation of a partnership contract with specific clauses mostly aimed at disposing of inheritances and child-rearing. Governments are involved in contracts because they're the agency of recourse when contracts fail and agent you record those contracts with in the first place, just like any other contract. The only agencies that are unnecessary but for some reason commonly want to insert itself into that contract are religious ones, but they're the least important figures in marriage. Really, the whole concept of a monogamous marriage only owes itself to the Catholic Church performing its slowly inserted presence in every aspect of European life during the Middle Ages - because Paul had a bunch of sexual hangups and would have preferred everyone to remain virgins until death (with inevitable consequence of forcing the deity to intervene and knock everyone up I presume) but eventually they backed off and just tried to make sex as unpleasant and narrowly defined as possible.

But if you strip that away, it's always been and always will be a secular domestic partnership regardless of how many participants or whatever else may be going on. In that sense the government giving tax privileges to married people is no more outlandish than them giving tax privileges to any small business. And from an economic standpoint, having people come together (for whatever reason) to pool their wealth and purchase things that individuals alone could not, that's not a terrible thing. It essentially creates a wealthier virtual citizen that's the married group (monogamous or otherwise) and that's enough to pull some people out of their previous economic circumstances. That is, it's good for economic mobility.